How come those of us in the progressive vein of our church are being called revisionists by those of the more fundamentalist tone? What exactly is it that we're revising? Church doctrine? The Bible? Our understanding of the way the world works? And this is a bad thing?

Revisionism, according to my online dictionary, is defined: Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements.

Haven't revisions to our doctrine always been made as new information comes to light? To claim one side revises and the other doesn't is an illegitimate claim, in my opinion. Their preferred way of "doing church" is a revision of the way their grandparents did it. (The reason that Traditionalists haven't clamoured for a prayer book older than the 1928 verison is that the marriage vows included the woman promising to "love, honor, and obey," rather than "love, honor, and cherish." Obey was replaced with cherish in the 1928 BCP.) Our preferred way of "doing church" is a revision of the way our parents did it. So they accept change more slowly than we do. Is that any reason to break off communion? Seems to me they are just looking for an excuse to get out from under Jesus' command to love one another.

News from the Church of England's Synod is that they have approved women bishops. They voted for the principle of it, but did not change the canons. Yet. Did they do this to support the progressive stance of the American church, as opposed to the ultra-conservative position of the Network churches?

ABC Williams' speech to this body was rather cryptic, but what I got out of it was that he wants to give ++Akinola enough rope to hang himself. He has invited reactions to TEC convention from all the primates and will meet again with them in Feb. to see "what emerges from all this..." He has no papal authority, and would sincerely like to hold things together, I believe. In the meantime, ++Akinola may just go so far out on his limb that the whole Network branch breaks off. I hope not. I hate to see positions so calcified that communion among us is broken. It's not a good witness to the world when Christians refuse to embrace other Christians in ecumenical goodwill.

I was glad to see that ++Williams does not want anyone to violate the convictions of their conscience, ...a concern for unity – for unity (I must repeat this yet again) as a means to living in the truth – is not about placing the survival of an institution above the demands of conscience.
God forbid.

"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity." John Wesley